Was Osama Right?

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
It is sad to say this - but maybe OBL was right

Looking at how Dems want to surrendner to terroritsts in Iraq, how libs are more interested in protecting the "rights" of terrorists, and how libs only want to win their war on Bush rather then the war on terror - maybe OBL was correct when he said the US is weak


Was Osama Right?
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.

BY BERNARD LEWIS
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"

A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.

These different responses evoked different treatment. While American policies, institutions and individuals were subject to unremitting criticism and sometimes deadly attack, the Soviets were immune. Their retention of the vast, largely Muslim colonial empire accumulated by the czars in Asia passed unnoticed, as did their propaganda and sometimes action against Muslim beliefs and institutions.
Most remarkable of all was the response of the Arab and other Muslim countries to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Washington's handling of the Tehran hostage crisis assured the Soviets that they had nothing to fear from the U.S. They already knew that they need not worry about the Arab and other Muslim governments. The Soviets already ruled--or misruled--half a dozen Muslim countries in Asia, without arousing any opposition or criticism. Initially, their decision and action to invade and conquer Afghanistan and install a puppet regime in Kabul went almost unresisted. After weeks of debate, the U.N. General Assembly finally was persuaded to pass a resolution "strongly deploring the recent armed intervention in Afghanistan." The words "condemn" and "aggression" were not used, and the source of the "intervention" was not named. Even this anodyne resolution was too much for some of the Arab states. South Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained; Libya was absent; the nonvoting PLO observer to the Assembly even made a speech defending the Soviets.

One might have expected that the recently established Organization of the Islamic Conference would take a tougher line. It did not. After a month of negotiation and manipulation, the organization finally held a meeting in Pakistan to discuss the Afghan question. Two of the Arab states, South Yemen and Syria, boycotted the meeting. The representative of the PLO, a full member of this organization, was present, but abstained from voting on a resolution critical of the Soviet action; the Libyan delegate went further, and used this occasion to denounce the U.S.

The Muslim willingness to submit to Soviet authority, though widespread, was not unanimous. The Afghan people, who had successfully defied the British Empire in its prime, found a way to resist the Soviet invaders. An organization known as the Taliban (literally, "the students") began to organize resistance and even guerilla warfare against the Soviet occupiers and their puppets. For this, they were able to attract some support from the Muslim world--some grants of money, and growing numbers of volunteers to fight in the Holy War against the infidel conqueror. Notable among these was a group led by a Saudi of Yemeni origin called Osama bin Laden.

To accomplish their purpose, they did not disdain to turn to the U.S. for help, which they got. In the Muslim perception there has been, since the time of the Prophet, an ongoing struggle between the two world religions, Christendom and Islam, for the privilege and opportunity to bring salvation to the rest of humankind, removing whatever obstacles there might be in their path. For a long time, the main enemy was seen, with some plausibility, as being the West, and some Muslims were, naturally enough, willing to accept what help they could get against that enemy. This explains the widespread support in the Arab countries and in some other places first for the Third Reich and, after its collapse, for the Soviet Union. These were the main enemies of the West, and therefore natural allies.

Now the situation had changed. The more immediate, more dangerous enemy was the Soviet Union, already ruling a number of Muslim countries, and daily increasing its influence and presence in others. It was therefore natural to seek and accept American help. As Osama bin Laden explained, in this final phase of the millennial struggle, the world of the unbelievers was divided between two superpowers. The first task was to deal with the more deadly and more dangerous of the two, the Soviet Union. After that, dealing with the pampered and degenerate Americans would be easy.

We in the Western world see the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as a Western, more specifically an American, victory in the Cold War. For Osama bin Laden and his followers, it was a Muslim victory in a jihad, and, given the circumstances, this perception does not lack plausibility.

From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.
Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.

More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010080
 

Dirt McGirt

Bad Mother****er
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
504
Points
48
It is sad to say this - but maybe OBL was right

Looking at how Dems want to surrendner to terroritsts in Iraq, how libs are more interested in protecting the "rights" of terrorists, and how libs only want to win their war on Bush rather then the war on terror - maybe OBL was correct when he said the US is weak
Red States Rule agrees with Osama Bin Laden in a desperate attempt to hang out the liberals. It's official, RSR hates liberals more than terrorists.
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Red States Rule agrees with Osama Bin Laden in a desperate attempt to hang out the liberals. It's official, RSR hates liberals more than terrorists.
He just wants someone to talk to him. And by talk I mean agree with his Op-Eds. and re-enforce his Right Wingotry
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
The Clash of Civilizations is a theory, proposed by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. The theory was originally formulated in 1993 in a Foreign Affairs article titled "The Clash of Civilizations?"[1][2], as a reaction to Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man. Huntington later expanded his thesis in a 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. The term itself was first used by Bernard Lewis in an article in the September 1990 issue of The Atlantic Monthly titled The Roots of Muslim Rage.

Bernard Lewis is not an unbiased source
 

Dirt McGirt

Bad Mother****er
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
504
Points
48
He just wants someone to talk to him. And by talk I mean agree with his Op-Eds. and re-enforce his Right Wingotry
I know. But he hit a new political low by agreeing with Bin Laden in order to bash the libs. Maybe RSR would be happier hiding in a cave with Bin Laden somewhere in the Middle East than partaking in Democracy and sharing America with the liberals.
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
This dirtbag she/he is quoting is part of the whole NeoCon world takeover insanity.
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
I know. But he hit a new political low by agreeing with Bin Laden in order to bash the libs. Maybe RSR would be happier hiding in a cave with Bin Laden somewhere in the Middle East than partaking in Democracy and sharing America with the liberals.
RSR only knows what he memorizes.

As far as hiding in a cave, RSR takes for granted what it means to have the freedom Americans do, if there is a Left, ther must absolutely be a Right, he wants only one, which is not a democracy.

Id be happier if RSR was in a cave:razz:
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
I know. But he hit a new political low by agreeing with Bin Laden in order to bash the libs. Maybe RSR would be happier hiding in a cave with Bin Laden somewhere in the Middle East than partaking in Democracy and sharing America with the liberals.
The new low would be the effort by Liberals to cut the free Iraqi people off at the knees and to openly reward terrorism with promised win. The Libs are telling our enemies exactly what they need to do to win.

Kill enough Americans and survive long enough and we will cut and run, just give us time, thats the message the "patriotic" Liberals are sending.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
RSR only knows what he memorizes.

As far as hiding in a cave, RSR takes for granted what it means to have the freedom Americans do, if there is a Left, ther must absolutely be a Right, he wants only one, which is not a democracy.

Id be happier if RSR was in a cave:razz:
I must assume from this post you don't like several of our left leaning members either, since they routinely call everyone that doesn't believe what they do idiots, morons or knuckledragging versions of the same. Check out Rosotar and his views on the Fairness Doctrine and Freedom of Speech. I wait with baited breath for your public denouncement of him.
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
I must assume from this post you don't like several of our left leaning members either, since they routinely call everyone that doesn't believe what they do idiots, morons or knuckledragging versions of the same. Check out Rosotar and his views on the Fairness Doctrine and Freedom of Speech. I wait with baited breath for your public denouncement of him.
All the fairness doctrine will do is demand that everybody gets both sides of any given political story. That means people will be more informed.

What's wrong with that?

Anyone who thinks people will be more informed with less information is a knuckle-dragging idiot!
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
All the fairness doctrine will do is demand that everybody gets both sides of any given political story. That means people will be more informed.

What's wrong with that?

Anyone who thinks people will be more informed with less information is a knuckle-dragging idiot!
So I assume you support then the "fairness doctrine" applied to every form of public discourse? News, talk TV, Comedy, all the leftoid MSM and all their leftoid programs?
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
So I assume you support then the "fairness doctrine" applied to every form of public discourse? News, talk TV, Comedy, all the leftoid MSM and all their leftoid programs?
No.

Only political opinion pieces.

This idea that all these other media are "slanted" to the left is just your opinion and frankly it doesn't have much merit.
 

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
All the fairness doctrine will do is demand that everybody gets both sides of any given political story. That means people will be more informed.

What's wrong with that?

Anyone who thinks people will be more informed with less information is a knuckle-dragging idiot!
"The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories.

Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended."

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

I advocate the Fairness Doctrine if only to get more coverage of all political candidates, which would make the medias job much more difficult, since they would have to dig up far more garbage on far more candidates, where would they find the time?
 

Rosotar

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
422
Reaction score
45
Points
16
Location
New Mexico
So I assume you support then the "fairness doctrine" applied to every form of public discourse? News, talk TV, Comedy, all the leftoid MSM and all their leftoid programs?
If all these other outlets in the MSM are really slanted to the left as you say then I guess you're saying the right can't compete in these areas so you want to change the rules huh?
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
If all these other outlets in the MSM are really slanted to the left as you say then I guess you're saying the right can't compete in these areas so you want to change the rules huh?
Nice misquote. I suggest you learn how to understand what you read. Ohh wait being our intellectual superior you already know everything....
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: CSM

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
All the fairness doctrine will do is demand that everybody gets both sides of any given political story. That means people will be more informed.

What's wrong with that?

Anyone who thinks people will be more informed with less information is a knuckle-dragging idiot!
Because people should not be forced to have entertainment dictated to them by political correctness, nor have the can't stay in business liberals forced on their air-time by government mandate.

I personally don't listen to talk radio, but it smacks of bullshit IMO when the left feels threatened enough by conservative talk radio's popularity that they demand the government step in and legislate equal time.

In any other sector, the market dictates who does and does not stay in business. If liberals would provide a superior product, they WOULD be on top. Crying because they are losers is bullshit.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Red States Rule agrees with Osama Bin Laden in a desperate attempt to hang out the liberals. It's official, RSR hates liberals more than terrorists.
So far the left is living up to all of OBL's expectitions
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I know. But he hit a new political low by agreeing with Bin Laden in order to bash the libs. Maybe RSR would be happier hiding in a cave with Bin Laden somewhere in the Middle East than partaking in Democracy and sharing America with the liberals.
So bashing libs is pointing out what they are doing and saying?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
All the fairness doctrine will do is demand that everybody gets both sides of any given political story. That means people will be more informed.

What's wrong with that?

Anyone who thinks people will be more informed with less information is a knuckle-dragging idiot!
People have a choice now. The problem is, people do not choose to listen to libs on the radio and on TV

Libs support choice as long as the people make the choice libs want them to make
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top